BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Beasleys Haulage Ltd v Wathey [1997] UKEAT 100_97_0205 (2 May 1997) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/100_97_0205.html Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 100_97_205, [1997] UKEAT 100_97_0205 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE D M LEVY QC
MR P DAWSON OBE
MRS R A VICKERS
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
PRELIMINARY HEARING
| For the Appellants | NO APPEARANCE BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
JUDGE LEVY QC: This is an appeal by Beasley Haulage Ltd ("the Company") under the ex-parte procedures, against the decision of an Industrial Tribunal sitting in Nottingham on 12 June 1996, when a unanimous decision of the Tribunal was that the Company made an unlawful deduction from the pay of Mr R S Wathey, contrary to certain sections of the Wages Act and ordered it to pay him £266.40, less appropriate statutory deductions in six days. The decision was sent to the parties on 17 June 1996.
The Company has failed to attend the hearing and in the circumstances the Tribunal heard the case in its absence. In paragraph 3 of the Summary Reasons this is said:
"Although the respondent entered an appearance, there is no comment at all in that appearance on the merits of the applicant's claim. It simply says: "Beasley's Transport has ceased trading"."
It then goes on to deal with the merits of the complaint on which the award was made.
We are very sorry to hear that the controller of the company is too ill to come to this Court today, but the situation is that he had the opportunity to attend before an Industrial Tribunal on 12 June 1996. In a fax received by this Tribunal on 19 August 1996 he put forward matters which could have been put forward before the Industrial Tribunal, which might have made them reach a different decision. But evidence has to be given when the parties should be in Court for their case to be heard. If they do not attend, they have lost the opportunity, save in special circumstances, to put that evidence before the Court.
We see no reason why the evidence put forward in a fax could not have been put before the hearing and in the circumstances it is too late now for us even to consider fresh evidence. In the circumstances there was evidence on which the Industrial Tribunal could found its decision and we therefore dismiss this appeal at this stage.
